Saturday, March 31, 2007

More Bonds

Eddie thinks I'm oversimplifying and points to this site to show that moving Bonds from third to second in the batting order won't make much of a difference.

First, not to oversimplify, but Cho's wrong.

Second, wow, I consider myself a baseball fan, but that's ridiculous.

My actual argument has changed a little over the years, but it's not based on number of at bats.

Three years ago Bonds was so devastating a hitter than he would change everything in the late innings. For instance, if the Giants were down a run or two, or if the game was tied, and Bonds was up 4th in the 9th inning, the threat of having to face him with the game on the line was very disruptive. I figured that if he moved up in the lineup, it was more likely that he would get that one extra at bat in close games. For instance, if Bonds were scheduled to bat 4th in a the ninth inning instead of 6th, it would put a lot more pressure on the opposing reliever.

Today, the argument is based on his knees. It's in the Giants' best interests to have him play as few innings as possible. Realistically, there are going to be plenty of games where he's good for three at bats and then he'll leave. If they can make that third at bat happen an inning earlier, it could help him. He's sufficiently gimpy/cranky/etc. that an extra inning here and there could make a difference.

No comments: